Tag Archives: Canon 355

This all boils down as to what is the most appropriate English translation of the Latin ‘antiquior.’

The US English Translation as provided by the Washington, D.C. based Canon Law Society of America (1999) when talking about 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 355 § 1 says:
‘the oldest cardinal from the episcopal order’.Please see << here >>.

The Vatican provided English translation of John Paul II’s (#265) Universi Dominici Gregis Clause #90 which is talking about the same situation says:
‘by the senior Cardinal Bishop’. Please see << here >>.

‘Oldest’ and ‘Senior’ when it comes to cardinals is not the same. Right now, when we discount the Dean and Sub-Dean, who are both over 80, Cardinal Martins in the OLDEST, Cardinal Re is the most SENIOR. See the problem.

But I am also contending with this June 14, 2010 comment from my friend ‘Stefano’ which says:{I’ve checked in the Latin-Italian dictionary. Maybe we’re all right, because the difference is very slight.Antiquior is the comparative of “Antiquus”, which means literally “very very old” (ancient, we would say), and – please note, that’s important – is intended to be the opposite of “novus” (= “new).Senior is the comparative of “senex”, meaning just “old” (not “very” old), and is intended to be the opposite of “juvenis” (= young).
So, to sum up the two words respectively mean “far more old” and “more old”. But what really differ is the starting point. Old in front of “new” in the first case and old in front of “young” in the second.
I think that applied in the cardinal precedence all this means that “antiquior” is a cardinal intended within the whole of his canonic curriculum vitae – i.e. a cardinal having been a bishop and a former priest for a much longer time than others. On the contrary, “senior” might be a cardinal which is no longer “young” – so to say – in his order. You see, the ancient languages (especially Greek, but also Latin) where much more profound in such implicit details than the modern ones. All the best and thank you for bouncing me back to my beloved Latin.}

This afternoon (June 14, 2010), I telephoned that Canon Law Society of America.

In 2007, they helped me out. I always go out of my way to be nice to those that help me out.

In 2007, I wanted to be able to quote a Canon in a book. Father Art Espelage, OFM, the then coordinator at the Society helped me out and gave e permission. I never published that book. But, I was always grateful.

When I called up today, I discovered that Father Espelage had left 2 years ago. The new coordinator was a Sister. Sister Sharon, I think.

I gave her the details and backed it up with an email with tons of links.

I also contacted ‘Our Lady’s Warriors’ in the UK.

So, I am doing my utmost to get these translations in line.

Just amuses the HECK out of me. Nobody else spotted these inconsistencies in a decade. Catholic scholarship?

Clause #90 of John Paul II’s (#265) 1996 Universi Dominici Gregis(in the English translation provided by the Vatican), THE current Apostolic Constitution that governs sede vacantes, conclaves and papal elections is at odds with the 1983 Code of Canon Law Canon 355 § 1 (per the English translation provided by the Vatican).

Moreover, Clause #90 of Universi Dominici Gregis is at odds with its own Clause #9! Clause #9, correctly, tries to anticipate the POSSIBILITY that you could have a conclave with no Cardinal Bishops in attendance. Yes, it can happen, in theory. At any one time we only have about 9 Cardinal Bishops, some of them Eastern Rites Patriarchs. Because of the 80 year age limit, vacancies, illness and in the case of the Patriarchs possible travel restrictions could result in a conclave with no Cardinal Bishops. This is NOT a problem. Clause #9 caters for this. Clause #90 does not. But, it appears that in Latin, Clause #9 is rather mangled! It is said to talk about the oldest by birth of the cardinal electors. Suffice to say … there is now confusion and growing agreement that there is indeed some inconsistencies in Universi Dominici Gregis. Please read << this >>.

The 1983 Code was formulated under the auspices of John Paul II, and Universi Dominici Gregis is meant to complement it, not to contradict it (especially with no mention, at all, that it is changing a Canon Law).

The Constitution repeatedly cites various Canons from the 1983 Code, with paragraph three of the Preamble even confirming that that Constitution is to provide for the ‘Special Laws’ cited in Canon 335.—

Yes, this is ALL to do with my one man QUEST to find whether the 1731Clement XII (#247) ruling as to the precedence among Cardinal Bishops, after that of Dean and Sub-Dean, have changed post-1913.

Please refer to these three recent posts and all the links to prior posts contained within them:

I have done everything in my power to get the Vatican to tell me WHEN the rules were changed … such that Cardinal Re now has precedence over Cardinal Arinze (not counting the Dean and Sub-Dean who are both over 80).

Given their stonewalling, I, per my right, am contending that they got it wrong and are loathe to admit it.

Prove me wrong, PLEASE.

That is all I ask.

Just give me the facts, and tell me I was wrong. I will be delighted. All I seek are the facts.

That expression about a British Bull Dog not letting go off a bone in its mouth is really not adequate to describe my tenacity when I am seeking a FACT.

So I continue to gnaw and today my goal was to show that the CURIA is far from infallible.

I already had a list … off the top of my head … but I just wanted to check this one thing … because … I kind of know where to look.

BINGO.

So I can NOW PROVE that the curia has screwed up at least ONCE when it comes to the VERY issue of Cardinal Bishop precedence.

So, I ask again. Prove me wrong.—

SO, THE ONE ‘CLAUSE’ THAT PERTAINS TO THIS POINT IS NOT CONSISTENT

1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 355 § 1 says:The cardinal dean is competent to ordain as a bishop the one elected as Roman Pontiff if he needs to be ordained; if the dean is impeded, the assistant dean has the same right, and if he is impeded, the oldest cardinal from the episcopal order.Canon 355 from http://www.vatican.va on June 11, 2010

Clause #90, paragraph 2 of John Paul II’s 1996 Universi Dominici Gregis (Vatican’s English translation) talking about the very same situation says:If the newly-elected Supreme Pontiff is not already a Bishop, his episcopal ordination, referred to in Nos. 88 and 89 of the present Constitution, shall be carried out according to the usage of the Church by the Dean of the College of Cardinals or, in his absence, by the Subdean or, should he too be prevented from doing so, by thesenior Cardinal Bishop.

But, when it comes to SENIORITY it is either Cardinal Arinze or Re — with me still contending that it is Arinze UNLESS the 1731 law was changed — and if it was … then WHEN (I can work out who the pope would have been).

Yes, John Paul II had the right and the power to unilaterally override the Canon. But, I if he did, there would typically have been some notation about it in the ‘References’ at the end. As it is the 1984 Code is cited thrice in the References section.

My point is simple. In 1983 we had one ruling, in 1996 another.

Yes, I fully understand that it is unlikely that any of us will see a non-bishop elected as pope in our lifetime … but we are talking here about precedence.

This is NOT the only inconsistency in Universi Dominici Gregis. There are others. I mentioned them, diplomatically as possible, in my ‘The Next Pope‘ book. I will now enumerate them in a separate posting because it confirms my contention — the curia drops the ball quite often.